Welcome to the Open Forum - the discussion forum for topics that don't quite fit anywhere else. Fair warning: Posts may be moved at the moderators' discretion to a more appropriate forum. Posts that are especially silly will probably end up in either the Fun and Games Forum or the Temporary Forum.

There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so."

He doesn't seem to be getting a whole lot of support from the scientific community.
Or from anyone else for that matter.

If I could cup your testicles in my hand and warm them, by way of appeasement, I would gladly do so. - TomHill

The women here have jobs which don't involve climbing aboard the Winston Train for a bit of Wu Wu Wu. - Kahna

There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so."

He doesn't seem to be getting a whole lot of support from the scientific community.Or from anyone else for that matter.

Because it isn't that simple (For example tribes in New Guinea were found to have a far better sense of direction than westerners). So was he talking about IQ tests ? In addition to that what practical difference would it make anyway if small differences in IQ were found or have been found between "races"?

Anyway the topic is very complex and most evidence suggests that the differences between individuals regardless of race, is much greater than the difference between races. I really don't see what the point of discussing it is anyway. By the looks of it perhaps Jewish people are far more intelligent that anyone else on the planet lol

I remember that most IQ tests found that "orientals" had the higest IQ. But does that mean they are also the most creative too ? Well not recently that is for sure. So someone has a higher IQ, hmm big deal. Did van Goh have a high IQ. I doubt he would of done very well on an IQ test but he sure could paint ?

Oh yeah not related to this question, but it is widely believed by many that Watson and Crick stole most of their evidence for the structure of DNA from a female scientist, of the top of my head it was Rosilin Franklin I think.

fenlander wrote:Because it isn't that simple (For example tribes in New Guinea were found to have a far better sense of direction than westerners).

Such noble people those savages.

I think there's something in it, why I'm yet to meet one Saffie that comes anywhere near my blistering intelligence. Nice people, if just a tad slow. But that's alright, they can take a laugh and just like mongol kiddies as long as you offer them a piece of cake after dusting them up a liittle and all's forgiven. I like them. I hope they go on tu beat England.

HG

I'm a wicked young lady, but I've been trying hard lately. Oh fark it! I'm a monster! I admit it!

"Intelligence" is a nebulous, artificial concept. Obviously there exist differences between individuals in ability to process and retain information in certain ways, but there is no one such thing as 'intelligence'. Mental abilities are complicated, multidimensional and not directly observable -- they are therefore poorly understood. They are not a unitary, easily conceptualized or measured thing. To take one particular conceptualization of mental abilities, and one particular quantified measure of them based on that arbitrary conceptualization, and then to reify that quantification (treating it as if it were a real entity) is a risible compounding of errors.

Even if we were to accept, for the sake of argument, that 'intelligence' as a single, quantifiable entity exists and that it can be reliably measured (which it cannot), the differences between this measure for different people of the same group (by gender, ethnicity or whatever) are much greater than the small differences purportedly found between groups, making any blanket statements about group differences patently meaningless. Add to that the potential for gross abuse of the concept, the measures, and the group differences, and we now have a dangerous artificial concept.

So there's really no point in discussing such group "differences", is there?

As to Mr. Watson's statement that "There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically", I would point out that the thousands of ethnic groups which some artificially divide into 'races', a biologically nonsensical categorization, have emerged in only thousands to perhaps tens of thousands of years, a mere fraction of the history of homo sapiens, and there is rather no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in this brief moment of evolution should prove to have evolved disparately, especially in light of the tiny genetic differences identified between these groups relative both to the size of the human genome and to the early establishment (between 1.5 and 2.5 million years ago) of the large cranial capacity of the genus Homo.

Mr. Watson states "All our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really", but he conveniently ignores factors such as the cultural bias in IQ tests, and the inequality in educational opportunities which grossly skew such measures.

Finally, the linked report states:

He said there was a natural desire that all human beings should be equal but "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true".

Anyone who can't see that Mr. Watson has a racist agenda to pursue is either mentally defective or spiritually tarnished. He has also made openly sexist and homophobic remarks, and quite frankly, it is a shame that his position as eminent scientist has given him the stage to air such ignorant and hateful views. He is an embarrassment to the scientific community, and should preferably be given an early funeral.

fenlander wrote:Because it isn't that simple (For example tribes in New Guinea were found to have a far better sense of direction than westerners).

Such noble people those savages.

I think there's something in it, why I'm yet to meet one Saffie that comes anywhere near my blistering intelligence. Nice people, if just a tad slow. But that's alright, they can take a laugh and just like mongol kiddies as long as you offer them a piece of cake after dusting them up a liittle and all's forgiven. I like them. I hope they go on tu beat England.

HG

ah sorry mis-understanding. I was excluding the British from this debate as they are so obviously superior in every way, that it would be unfair to include them (yes that was tongue in cheek)

Issac Newton a Fenlander was obviously the greatest most intelligent man that ever lived. Unlike Einstein he didn't use his assistant's math brain for his ideas or unlike Crick use a feminist scientist. Hmm maybe Darwin is better, but Jesus wouldn't like him. So yeah Newton was the smartest most intelligent man (human) ever to of been in existence, since the birth of the universe.

As for the S. Africans beating England in the rugby well I think they will, so if they do i will vacate the forum for a few days until the result is forgotten.

But back to the question.

I wish we could just forget race in everything. I'm quite sick of hearing about racial differences in intelligence. Because what good does it do anyway ? Absolutely nothing. Most people of all races never get anywhere near their genetic potential anyway. Environment is so very important that genetics plays a very small part.

The movie boys from Brazil is a good film to watch about genetics and environment.

Some neo nazis clone Hitler. The cloned Hitler grows up in America. Eventually when they go to tell the teenage clone his detiny is in restoring the third reich, it all goes wrong because the clone is totally different to Hitler and is not a racist at all. Great movie!

Dragonbones wrote:"Intelligence" is a nebulous, artificial concept. Obviously there exist differences between individuals in ability to process and retain information in certain ways, but there is no one such thing as 'intelligence'. Mental abilities are complicated, multidimensional and not directly observable -- they are therefore poorly understood. They are not a unitary, easily conceptualized or measured thing. To take one particular conceptualization of mental abilities, and one particular quantified measure of them based on that arbitrary conceptualization, and then to reify that quantification (treating it as if it were a real entity) is a risible compounding of errors.

Even if we were to accept, for the sake of argument, that 'intelligence' as a single, quantifiable entity exists and that it can be reliably measured (which it cannot), the differences between this measure for different people of the same group (by gender, ethnicity or whatever) are much greater than the small differences purportedly found between groups, making any blanket statements about group differences patently meaningless. Add to that the potential for gross abuse of the concept, the measures, and the group differences, and we now have a dangerous artificial concept.

So there's really no point in discussing such group "differences", is there?

As to Mr. Watson's statement that "There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically", I would point out that the thousands of ethnic groups which some artificially divide into 'races', a biologically nonsensical categorization, have emerged in only thousands to perhaps tens of thousands of years, a mere fraction of the history of homo sapiens, and there is rather no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in this brief moment of evolution should prove to have evolved disparately, especially in light of the tiny genetic differences identified between these groups relative both to the size of the human genome and to the early establishment (between 1.5 and 2.5 million years ago) of the large cranial capacity of the genus Homo.

Mr. Watson states "All our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really", but he conveniently ignores factors such as the cultural bias in IQ tests, and the inequality in educational opportunities which grossly skew such measures.

Finally, the linked report states:

He said there was a natural desire that all human beings should be equal but "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true".

Anyone who can't see that Mr. Watson has a racist agenda to pursue is either mentally defective or spiritually tarnished. He has also made openly sexist and homophobic remarks, and quite frankly, it is a shame that his position as eminent scientist has given him the stage to air such ignorant and hateful views. He is an embarrassment to the scientific community, and should preferably be given an early funeral.

FRIENDLY REMINDER Please remember that Forumosa is not responsible for the content that appears on the other side of links that Forumosans post on our forums. As a discussion website, we encourage open and frank debate. We have learned that the most effective way to address questionable claims or accusations on Forumosa is by engaging in a sincere and constructive conversation. To make this website work, we must all feel safe in expressing our opinions, this also means backing up any claims with hard facts, including links to other websites.
Please also remember that one should not believe everything one reads on the Internet, particularly from websites whose content cannot be easily verified or substantiated. Use your common sense and do not hesitate to ask for proof.